The question is periodically raised as to whether the children of illegal aliens are entitled to lower in-state college tuition at various state colleges and universities.
These "children" are neither aliens nor immigrants. They were born in the United States and based on traditional law, they should be considered potential citizens, as is any other child born in the US. On that basis, they should be entitled to lower in-state tuition, if they have lived in the state.
Unfortunately, that conclusion is wrong, because we have started from an incorrect assumption.
The incorrect assumption is that there should be an in-state tuition and an out-of-state tuition. The rationale for the two different tuitions is that the taxpayers of the state have financially supported in-state colleges and universities, and therefore, the state taxpayers and their children, are entitled to lower in-state tuition.
However, the fact is that state taxpayers should not be financially supporting colleges and universities through state governments. The nature of higher education with its system of professors and physical campuses is such that no socialization is required.
State government financial support of colleges and universities should be eliminated. States have enough problems handling the already established and at least partially justified social requirements, such as minimal help for the poor, maintenance of roads and bridges, police and fire, etc..
Therefore, the solution is simple. Stop all state funding of colleges and universities. This would eliminate any justification for a tuition difference. In addition, the colleges and universities would become more efficient through competition, when state government funding is eliminated. Competition can be further increased by completely eliminating any federal funding for colleges and universities as well. Education is a business and should stand on its own feet without subsidization.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Eliminate Federal R&D Grants to Colleges and Universities
An article by Carmen Drahl in the October 22 issue of Chemical and Engineering News covers 2010 academic research and development spending trends.
Research and development spending by colleges and universities in 2010 was $58.3 billion. Of that amount, US taxpayers contributed $36.5 billion or 63% of the total. That is in itself atrocious. How can the federal government justify dumping $36.5 billion of taxpayer funds into such a pie-in-the-sky operation as academic R&D? The answer is that it is a political expenditure primarily in an effort to obtain information to support government ideology, which would justify an increase in government control through higher taxes. An example is to try to connect carbon dioxide emissions to a fear of global warming, so that carbon dioxide emissions can be taxed.
However, it gets worse when we see that total academic R&D in 2010 increased 6.1% over the previous year, while the federal component increased 12.1%.
I call on Congress to do the right thing for the Republic and the taxpayers in general by eliminating government grants to colleges and universities for academic R&D. Any necessary R&D required by the federal government, such as improvement of military operations, should be done internally. However, control would also obviously be necessary on that process as well.
The primary function of colleges and universities is for education of students. In that process, students need to be educated in methods of conducting research, and research projects would be necessary. However such research projects should be decided on by the universities themselves, with their own money, rather than tainted political money from the federal government.
Research and development spending by colleges and universities in 2010 was $58.3 billion. Of that amount, US taxpayers contributed $36.5 billion or 63% of the total. That is in itself atrocious. How can the federal government justify dumping $36.5 billion of taxpayer funds into such a pie-in-the-sky operation as academic R&D? The answer is that it is a political expenditure primarily in an effort to obtain information to support government ideology, which would justify an increase in government control through higher taxes. An example is to try to connect carbon dioxide emissions to a fear of global warming, so that carbon dioxide emissions can be taxed.
However, it gets worse when we see that total academic R&D in 2010 increased 6.1% over the previous year, while the federal component increased 12.1%.
I call on Congress to do the right thing for the Republic and the taxpayers in general by eliminating government grants to colleges and universities for academic R&D. Any necessary R&D required by the federal government, such as improvement of military operations, should be done internally. However, control would also obviously be necessary on that process as well.
The primary function of colleges and universities is for education of students. In that process, students need to be educated in methods of conducting research, and research projects would be necessary. However such research projects should be decided on by the universities themselves, with their own money, rather than tainted political money from the federal government.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Government Should Not Fund Graduate Education
In the Government Concentrates Section of the October 8 issue of C&E
News, AW comments on Graduate School Applications. The Council of Graduate
Students reports that universities have noted a Master's Degree enrollment drop
of 2.1% from 2010 to 2011, and a PhD enrollment increase of 0.5% for all
disciplines. Grad school enrollments in the Physical and Earth Sciences showed
an increase of 0.5%. Applications for all graduate programs were up 4.3% from
2010 to 2011.
The Council of Graduate Schools President said, "We must respond with strong investment in graduate programs and student funding."
I strongly disagree with her statement. The figures do not indicate that we have any calamitous decline in production of scientists with advanced degrees. More significantly, I completely disagree with her statement of responding with student funding. Her statement is likely intended to mean taxpayer funding for graduate students through grants or similar funding techniques. This is completely unnecessary. Universities were turning out well-educated scientists well before government even thought about funding graduate students.
Funding can be accomplished by the universities themselves as payment (stipends) for graduate students performing laboratory teaching assistant duties. Private companies (anything non-government) can also develop contracts with professors for research projects involving graduate students, for which the students are paid a small stipend for living conditions.
The Council of Graduate Schools President said, "We must respond with strong investment in graduate programs and student funding."
I strongly disagree with her statement. The figures do not indicate that we have any calamitous decline in production of scientists with advanced degrees. More significantly, I completely disagree with her statement of responding with student funding. Her statement is likely intended to mean taxpayer funding for graduate students through grants or similar funding techniques. This is completely unnecessary. Universities were turning out well-educated scientists well before government even thought about funding graduate students.
Funding can be accomplished by the universities themselves as payment (stipends) for graduate students performing laboratory teaching assistant duties. Private companies (anything non-government) can also develop contracts with professors for research projects involving graduate students, for which the students are paid a small stipend for living conditions.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Good News on the Education Front
Here is some good news on the education front. The Dow Chemical Company has two programs for investing in education. The first is a grant program to MIT to foster a developing interest in science by women and minorities. The second is a program with Texas A&M to support graduate student research through grants.
The significance of this is that private industry takes an interest in supporting education. It is not altruistic, nor should it be. Dow is one among many companies in the business of making a profit through the supply of chemicals. In order to sustain its operation for the benefit of the stockholders, management, lower level employees, and its customers, Dow needs to continually replace employees who retire. In order to have a properly qualified pool from which to draw new, competent employees, it must ensure that that the pool is large enough, with members who are intellectually blessed and have had the advantage of a good chemical education in preparation for new responsibilities in industry.
Industry grants to graduate students help the students maintain living conditions, as they continue their education. A grant is usually tied to a research project or theme in which the sponsor is interested. The research results may be usable in part by the sponsoring company, In addition, this type of apprenticeship gives the company information on the prospects of the student as a potential employee.
Conversely, the US government has different motivations for sponsoring education at the expense of the tax payer. It promotes general education as a benefit to the serfs from the great white (now black) father. Any such distribution of funds, of either direct or indirect benefit to citizens, is a vote getter to retain power. Those recipients do not connect with the fact that the distributions are from their own pockets as taxes.
Like industry, government grants are tied to a program of the sponsor. The program of the industrial sponsor is to gain information from the research and help judge the candidacy of the grant receiver as a potential employee. The insidious part of the government sponsoring agency is to gain information, which can be used to support far-out government ideology and influence the public. The doling out of money also satisfies the ego and yet increases the power lust of administrative officials.
Private industry has properly husbanded its resources and can afford to support its legitimate cost of developing education to further its business of supplying goods and services to the people.. The federal government, on the other hand, is broke and has no legitimate reason for continuing its grant program.. The taxpaying public must find ways to eliminate these obscene expenses for "pie in the sky" operations at taxpayer expense. One obvious way is to throw out the present administration and its congressional supporters in the next
The significance of this is that private industry takes an interest in supporting education. It is not altruistic, nor should it be. Dow is one among many companies in the business of making a profit through the supply of chemicals. In order to sustain its operation for the benefit of the stockholders, management, lower level employees, and its customers, Dow needs to continually replace employees who retire. In order to have a properly qualified pool from which to draw new, competent employees, it must ensure that that the pool is large enough, with members who are intellectually blessed and have had the advantage of a good chemical education in preparation for new responsibilities in industry.
Industry grants to graduate students help the students maintain living conditions, as they continue their education. A grant is usually tied to a research project or theme in which the sponsor is interested. The research results may be usable in part by the sponsoring company, In addition, this type of apprenticeship gives the company information on the prospects of the student as a potential employee.
Conversely, the US government has different motivations for sponsoring education at the expense of the tax payer. It promotes general education as a benefit to the serfs from the great white (now black) father. Any such distribution of funds, of either direct or indirect benefit to citizens, is a vote getter to retain power. Those recipients do not connect with the fact that the distributions are from their own pockets as taxes.
Like industry, government grants are tied to a program of the sponsor. The program of the industrial sponsor is to gain information from the research and help judge the candidacy of the grant receiver as a potential employee. The insidious part of the government sponsoring agency is to gain information, which can be used to support far-out government ideology and influence the public. The doling out of money also satisfies the ego and yet increases the power lust of administrative officials.
Private industry has properly husbanded its resources and can afford to support its legitimate cost of developing education to further its business of supplying goods and services to the people.. The federal government, on the other hand, is broke and has no legitimate reason for continuing its grant program.. The taxpaying public must find ways to eliminate these obscene expenses for "pie in the sky" operations at taxpayer expense. One obvious way is to throw out the present administration and its congressional supporters in the next
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Racist TV programs
Open letter to CNN:
CNN is now running a program entitled, "Latinos in America". As I recall, they previously ran a similar program entitled, "Blacks in America".
I am wondering why the news media in general persists in running racist programs. Don't we have enough division in this country? It seems to me that we are all Americans, and we will all get along a lot better if we do like a bunch of kids playing together. Not worry about who's white, who's black, and who's yellow.
I tried to bring this to the attention of CNN management and spent about a half hour wandering around through their various websites, without success. The management seems to have very fixed opinions on what they want to air and are not much interested in what anyone thinks about it. If it weren't for Lou Dobbs, I think I would give up on CNN.
CNN is now running a program entitled, "Latinos in America". As I recall, they previously ran a similar program entitled, "Blacks in America".
I am wondering why the news media in general persists in running racist programs. Don't we have enough division in this country? It seems to me that we are all Americans, and we will all get along a lot better if we do like a bunch of kids playing together. Not worry about who's white, who's black, and who's yellow.
I tried to bring this to the attention of CNN management and spent about a half hour wandering around through their various websites, without success. The management seems to have very fixed opinions on what they want to air and are not much interested in what anyone thinks about it. If it weren't for Lou Dobbs, I think I would give up on CNN.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Pres. Obamas' Address to School Children
Skeet,
You said you had seen yesterday the preliminary of Pres Obama's speech to school children scheduled for delivery today. It sounded fine and innocent, like his other speeches on many issues, but you are still concerned.
Right on! Pres. Obama is a master at manipulating groups. He uses a standard strategy with special speaking techniques of volume control, time spacing, changing countenance, etc., at which he is very good.
The strategy is the dangerous part. In initial address to groups, the message must be light, encouraging, and containing no controversial elements. This is what I expected from Pres. Obama, and which you Skeet confirm having heard as a preliminary.
Once confidence of the audience has been established, such as in school children and their parents, the message starts to deviate in subsequent speeches. The audience is exposed to things that the speaker wants the audience to hear rather than what the audience wants to hear. But, confidence has previously been established and the message changes are done in such a subtle manner that they can easily be accepted and digested.
Subsequent speeches build the strategy by continuing to bring in controversial matters for acceptance.
Two things then happen. Intellectually responsible adults, such as parents, start to realize they have been hoodwinked, but it is too late to do anything about it. The uninitiated, such as children and idiots, never realize what has happened and accept the total package.
There is one sure way to keep your children from being brainwashed. Do not allow even a beginning address by a person who you have known from previous experience to have philosophies dangerously different from your own. This is not fundamentally different than the process that most parents of teenagers use in insisting that they have personally met and conversed with their teenagers' friends.
You said you had seen yesterday the preliminary of Pres Obama's speech to school children scheduled for delivery today. It sounded fine and innocent, like his other speeches on many issues, but you are still concerned.
Right on! Pres. Obama is a master at manipulating groups. He uses a standard strategy with special speaking techniques of volume control, time spacing, changing countenance, etc., at which he is very good.
The strategy is the dangerous part. In initial address to groups, the message must be light, encouraging, and containing no controversial elements. This is what I expected from Pres. Obama, and which you Skeet confirm having heard as a preliminary.
Once confidence of the audience has been established, such as in school children and their parents, the message starts to deviate in subsequent speeches. The audience is exposed to things that the speaker wants the audience to hear rather than what the audience wants to hear. But, confidence has previously been established and the message changes are done in such a subtle manner that they can easily be accepted and digested.
Subsequent speeches build the strategy by continuing to bring in controversial matters for acceptance.
Two things then happen. Intellectually responsible adults, such as parents, start to realize they have been hoodwinked, but it is too late to do anything about it. The uninitiated, such as children and idiots, never realize what has happened and accept the total package.
There is one sure way to keep your children from being brainwashed. Do not allow even a beginning address by a person who you have known from previous experience to have philosophies dangerously different from your own. This is not fundamentally different than the process that most parents of teenagers use in insisting that they have personally met and conversed with their teenagers' friends.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Pres. Obama and Your Children
Pres. Obama is scheduled to address US schoolchildren this coming Tuesday. If you do not want your children or grandchildren exposed directly to Pres. Obama's philosophies, I suggest you telephone the Administration of your local School District and the School Board President to ask that they NOT accept the message into the school communication system. This is the last day to act.
It has previously been suggested that parents keep their children out of school next Tuesday. However, that may be difficult for working parents, and it may be easier but less certain to look up phone numbers and make two phone calls.
I have heard of one school administrator who has said that parents will not be ALLOWED to keep their children from school. This is an indication of a philosophy that is already being applied in many school systems. It seems to me that as a parent, you have the responsibility to have your child educated in a reasonable manner and not a manner dictated by the President and his staff.
It has previously been suggested that parents keep their children out of school next Tuesday. However, that may be difficult for working parents, and it may be easier but less certain to look up phone numbers and make two phone calls.
I have heard of one school administrator who has said that parents will not be ALLOWED to keep their children from school. This is an indication of a philosophy that is already being applied in many school systems. It seems to me that as a parent, you have the responsibility to have your child educated in a reasonable manner and not a manner dictated by the President and his staff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
